Photo courtesy of Flicker
Above, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front celebrates their 40th anniversary. The TPLF opposes Abiy Ahmed Ali’s democratic policies and reforms.
By Cynthia Akanaga ’25
Staff Writer
Two years ago, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed Ali was awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts in facilitating peace with long-time political enemy Eritrea. Today, Ethiopia is the site of a civil war that has, according to Bloomberg, killed thousands of civilians and displaced about three million people, leading to what the UN dubbed “the worst exodus of refugees from Ethiopia seen in two decades.”
According to Brookings, “Since November 2020, the government of Ethiopia has been at war with the political leadership of the Tigray ethnic minority — the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) — which previously dominated the country’s leadership and has been at odds with Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s policies.”
Having ruled Ethiopia before Abiy came to power, the TPLF remained in opposition to Abiy’s pro-democratic reforms, such as the consolidation of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Front, originally composed of four parties, into a new singular Prosperity Party, Brookings reported. This set off a period of provocative reciprocity between the government and the Tigray region. Ignoring the government’s postponement of elections due to COVID-19, TPLF organized their regional elections. Abiy responded by withholding government funds. With tensions already stretched thin, Abiy’s order to mobilize national troops against the region on the claims of their alleged attack on a federal army base outside Tigray’s regional capital Mekelle was the last straw, CNN reported.
Natalie Sabanadze, former ambassador of the Georgian Mission to the European Union and Cyrus Vance visiting professor of international relations, shared her opinions regarding the conflict in Ethiopia.
Sabanadze said that her first reaction to hearing about the civil war was, “Again? … And how long until we do something about this?” Her reaction referred to the opposing interests in the UN Security Council that stalled any actions toward alleviating the conflict in Ethiopia.
According to Euronews, the U.S., Britain, Ireland, Estonia, France and Norway planned to raise the issue of Ethiopia’s expulsion of seven UN personnel “during a closed-door meeting of the 15-member body, but diplomats say any strong action is unlikely as Russia and China have long made clear they believe the conflict is an internal affair for Ethiopia.”
“The UN actually developed Responsibility to Protect (R2P) [a global political commitment] to deal with issues like [these],” Sabanadze explained, referencing the issue of sovereignty, especially as it is addressed in times of conflict. The Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect defines R2P as “an international norm that seeks to ensure that the international community never again fails to halt the mass atrocity crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.”
Sabanadze further explained that it “rewrites the definition of sovereignty, that states have the [duty] to protect their citizens, not do whatever they want. And if they are not capable of protecting their citizens, the UN will step in to do that.”
On Sept. 17, the Biden administration announced its plans to impose financial sanctions in Ethiopia in response to the UN expulsions. However, Sabanadze doesn’t think they would be effective. “Financial sanctions work when you have an effective country that has something to lose,” she said.
Lily Smith ’25, a student in a World Politics class, echoed Sabanadze’s concern, saying, “Putting further sanctions on the economy only worsens the state of people in Ethiopia and doesn’t really allow a lot of access to people who need help.”
Smith and Sabanadze both acknowledged that passing intervention strategies through the UN is difficult, but Sabanadze argued that for the sake of international legitimacy, a resolution has to come through the UN and not from one of the world powers working on their own.
These ideas are reiterated in the Ethiopia Insight, in which writer Patrick Wright outlined four options to solve the conflict in Ethiopia for the same publication. In June 2021, one of these solutions was that “other actors could use force without either host state[’s] consent or a Security Council resolution.” Wright then stated that this option is “unpalatable because it is unclear who would intervene militarily in Ethiopia, to what ends and whether such an intervention would ameliorate the situation or simply add another layer of complexity to the war.”
Sabanadze further added that “the African Union is in the best position to handle this conflict and the UN and EU should bring them to the table while deciding the best action to take in Ethiopia.”